I am liberal and I had my fair share of liberal classes, but they were more often than not pretty fair and heavily evidence-based. I remember learning about turn of the twentieth century policy regarding the working class and seeing slides chock full of quotes and citations. Most of the source material was primary, giving you as close to an unfiltered view of history as possible. When secondary sources were introduced, we were always cautioned to take into account the author’s biases and to always check their citations directly, wherever possible.
The fear is that emotion and reliance on secondary or tertiary sources is trumping reason and primary evidence. In many cases, it’s okay to shout down MRA activists talking about male suicide because women are being oppressed, as written by this feminist author. And if Milo shows up on campus criticizing feminists and BLM people in his absurdist fashion, we should destroy property and attempt to rush the stage because we are on the “right side of history.” Because my professor said so.
Also, some minor points but the SPLC has made some curious distinctions lately — including calling Maajid Nawaz, a respected intellectual and former Muslim, as an “anti-Muslim extremist.” I instinctively do a double-take and some googling to make sure before trusting anything they say nowadays.
Lastly, Peter Thiel should not be the mascot of ideological diversity. I think someone closer to Mark Cuban would be a better fit.